A Postoperative Examination of the Cosmic Temple - Episode 016

## Introduction

- Welcome to Genesis Marks the Spot where we raid the ivory tower of biblical theology without ransacking our faith.  My name is Carey Griffel and today's topic is the cosmic temple. To some of you, this topic is going to be incredibly familiar.  To others, it will be brand new or you might be only be vaguely familiar with it but it's a big topic within biblical theology and it's one that I don't see a whole lot of pushback on because quite frankly there is not a whole lot of reason to push back on it because it's so clear really. However that doesn't mean there's no pushback on it so we're gonna do our best to dig into this and see what we can find and see what we can come up with because if we're going to be critically thinking about these things then it's really important that we be able to look for the arguments that are against what we're thinking and see how strong they are and see if they have any validity.
- This isn't an entirely new topic for this podcast because I have already talked about John Walton's discussions on the theme of sacred space that genesis one centers on. And I'll just be honest with you I think that's an extremely sound and solid argument.  Maybe you’ll agree with me by the end of this episode, or maybe what I present here will change your mind.  Feel free to let me know either way!  EIther on fb or by email at ….but i’d love to hear from you
- So, part of the conversation about this is…when you look at genesis one and you look at genesis 2, you might start seeing some differences you start wondering what is the point of genesis 1 is genesis 2 a separate, is it a separate account from genesis 1? There's a few reasons you might think so they seem like they're talking about the same thing and yet there are some differences and we can ask why those are there. In the episode where we talked about the analogical days view of creation, C. John Collins gave a reason for the difference or in some of the differences in genesis 2 and that's because he thinks that it is looking at a particular land with a particular climate and particular circumstance and this could very well be because Eden, Eden is a particular place.  Eden is not the entire world. And it makes perfect sense that what we're talking about in genesis 2 is a land that's centered somewhere around the area of the ancient near east. Nothing else makes any sense honestly, like Eden being in Antarctica or the North Pole or anything along those lines, none of that makes a lot of sense. So this was a land and even though this was not going to be a land that is in one to one correspondence with Canaan or the promised land it's got to still be a particular place and it's got to be somewhere in the general vicinity of that area because of the mention of the two rivers, the tigris and the Euphrates. But we're not gonna get into the geography here right now other than to mention that it had geography, it had real geography. No what we're gonna talk about is sacred space and I say sacred space because that's a more general term but it might actually be easier to talk about it this in terms of temple because the temple is the kind of central image of this in the Bible. It's the, the temple is the more concrete manifestation of sacred space, at least when we're talking in very general terms.
- so it is possible for sacred space to mean something a little more broad than the definition of the temple.  the temple or the tabernacle of the old testament have particular purposes so even though Eden predates the temple, it's still going to be best to look at the theme through the lens of the temple because the temple is so concrete.  at least that's the argument I’m going to be making here.  we could instead look at the temple through the lens of Eden which comes first of course, but but then that simply isn’t how it’s talked about through the rest of scripture.  this is similar to how we could look at the messiah as being the snake crusher but the theme of the anointed, which is where we get the term messiah from, is simply the more used and specific term.
- But let me back up here a moment…why am I even talking about sacred space and the temple?  Isn’t the purpose of the temple to be for rituals?  Sure sure, they’re sacred places, but the purpose of them is the ritual, right?
- That is certainly how we tend to compartmentalize the concept of the temple.  In a way it’s not wrong.  The temple’s rituals served as a kind of machine or mechanism to produce some kind of result.  Input the right actions and out you get some results.  That’s the kind of the idea…though I’d ***strongly*** suggest it’s not the biblical purpose of the temple.
- As a counter point to what we are going to get into here in this episode, let’s talk about LDS temples for a bit.  This is how I grew up thinking about temples.  Temples in my LDS experience were, indeed, places of sacred space…so sacred that you couldn’t enter one—at least not after it was dedicated as a temple—unless you had achieved certain standards in the way you live your life.  The LDS person, to go into a temple, needs what is known as a “temple recommend,” which is something given by leaders after an interview which examines your life—do you regularly attend church, do you give tithes, do you obey particular codes of conduct, etc, etc.  You can be LDS and not have a temple recommend because you haven’t been living correctly in some way.
- I’m going to read something from a current LDS website to give you an idea of why they have temples.
- This is from the official website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, under the question, “What is the Purpose of the Temple?”:
- “Some gospel ordinances and covenants are so sacred that God permits us to receive them only in special places called temples. A temple is literally a house of the Lord—a holy place set apart from the rest of the world. In the temple, you learn more about the plan of salvation and how to follow Christ’s perfect example. God’s greatest blessings are available in His temples.”
- link:  [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/families-and-temples/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-temple?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/families-and-temples/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-temple?lang=eng)
- That was from the official church website, the LDS church website.  Another quote from this page:
- “For members of the Church, a temple is the most sacred place of worship on the earth. It is unique from all other places of worship. It is designated as the only place where families can be united forever and where the most sacred gospel ordinances are performed. It is also a place where you can feel closer to Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, a place of peace and revelation, a place where family relationships are strengthened, and a place to seek direction concerning life’s challenges.”
- And also, further along on that same page:
- “Because the temple is the house of the Lord and the place where His most sacred ordinances are performed, God has established a standard that His children must meet before entering. As you prepare to go to the temple, you will have an interview similar to your baptismal interview. This interview is called a temple recommend interview. In this interview, your bishop or branch president will ask you some questions to confirm that you are keeping the commandments. If you are worthy and prepared, you will receive a temple recommend that will allow you to enter the temple.

”In addition to receiving your own temple ordinances, in temples you can receive ordinances on behalf of your ancestors and others who have died without the opportunity to receive them. These include baptism, confirmation, and every other ordinance necessary for salvation.”
- So, though the LDS temple is called the “house of the Lord,” somewhat similar to how we will describe the OT temple here in a minute, the LDS temple is necessary for rituals to secure salvation and supreme eternal life.  (I say “supreme” eternal life because salvation gets a bit…complex in LDS theology.)
- No, they don’t perform literal sacrifices in the LDS temple; if you’re curious, there are many places online which will lay out some of the things they do—they’re supposed to be “sacred” to the point of being secret, but there are plenty of people who have described these things.  But my point is, from their perspective, you’re not capable of being truly saved without these things that happen in the LDS temples.  The LDS church has always placed a great emphasis on temple building because of this…and they do see the building of a temple as a kind of “win” in a particular area, the taking back of heathen space, if you will.  They’re doing quite a bit of building of them these days and they allow people to go through them before they’re dedicated, so if you’re curious about what they look like inside, you might be able to go check one out if they are building one local to you.
    - Because I’ll probably get this question from someone…yes, I went into the LDS temple when I was a teenager, but I didn’t ever go all the way through, which you can’t do until you’re at least a young adult—and usually you do that when you get married in the temple or go on a mission, which I never did.  What I did was, I participated in what they call “baptisms for the dead,” which is something they allow even teenagers to assist with.  Basically they have had people collect lists of names from their ancestral history of people who have not been baptized into the LDS church—the LDS community is really, really big on doing genealogical research because of this—and I went in a number of times with my peer group to be baptized, over and over and over in the name of all these other people.
    - It was a weird experience, though I didn’t really think too much of it at the time…it was just what you do because according to how I was taught, it was necessary that all of these people have these temple ordinances in case, after they died, they decided to accept the, quote, unquote, “true gospel.”
    - I never had any spiritual experiences connected to the LDS temple, as so many others claim to have had.  It’s a pretty and very clean building.  The baptismal font is kinda cool-looking because it’s on the back of 12 figured oxen—and yes, they did pull that imagery from the OT directly.
    - There are other so-called “sacred spaces” in the LDS world, and I did go to one of them at one point, the so-called “sacred grove” where Joseph Smith was supposed to have had his first vision and where many say you’re supposed to get some amazing affirmation of the truth of the LDS gospel—again, I had zero “spiritual experience” there.   But I’ll talk about that more another time, I am sure.
- So our question with all of that now is…does that, in any way, tie into what we actually see in the Bible?  I mean, we can import all kinds of ideas into Scripture if we want, but is it reasonable to see any connection between an LDS temple and what we see the Israelites doing in the Bible with their temple?
- Now, the thing is…most people…and I’m not pointing fingers here, but…most people have not read very closely the texts that involve the tabernacle and temple—well, mostly the tabernacle because that was instituted first and the temple is based on the tabernacle.  So we think, oh yes, the temple—the priests went in all of the time, right?  Not so much.  I mean, yes, they had daily and weekly tasks in part of it, but only the high priest went in to the holy of holies, and only once a year.  And even accepting that okay maybe we can broaden the concept of the priesthood and who is a priest today…are the tasks of the temple the same as this LDS idea that everyone needs to go into a physical temple to have rituals performed in order to be saved?  Well…this isn’t an episode on atonement theory, so I’ll say that even Christians load plenty of ideas in to this idea of the temple.
- But this is a very complex topic, of course.  I’d suggest we have some wrong ideas for what the function of the temple was—in short, it was about purification of uncleanliness rather than a system centered on moral guilt.  Go read Leviticus if you don’t believe me.  But maybe read it in a few translations rather than just one.
- In any case, yes, there are what we might call mechanisms that are associated with the temple, but are the rituals and offerings and all of that…are these actions what makes a temple, a temple?  That’s actually an important question for looking at the theme of the cosmic temple and Eden as a garden temple.  And I think this is where a lot of people get tripped up.  If the temple is all about ritual, and we don’t see that type of ritual being carried out in the first chapters of Genesis, then can we actually say that the garden, let alone the cosmos, is a temple?

## Biblical Theology:  The Cosmic Temple

- So, to find out if we can actually make this comparison, biblical theology is necessary because it is only in the context of the people of the Bible that we can make sense of the meanings of something like the temple.  We certainly can’t take our view of a temple and then import it back into the text.
- When systematic theology looks at the concept of the temple, it tends to look at it from a very literal point of view.  The temple is…well, the temple!  That building that they made where they did sacrifices and all of that.  I mean, this isn’t all systematic theology, okay….there are various systematic theologies and they will focus on different things.  But I did a search in Wayne Grudem’s popular *Systematic Theology* and of all the mentions of the temple in that book that I could find there were barely over a dozen places where the temple was mentioned as anything other than referring to the physical temple, the building itself, more or less.  The church as the temple is mentioned four times in that book.  Four times, and it feels like this is only because the association in the NT with this is made so clear that it would be odd to omit it.  The temple is used to refer to a greater symbol or metaphor in the book only five or six times.  The purpose of the temple as God’s dwelling place is mentioned once, and that was almost an accident.
- Why do I find that surprising, you might ask?  Well, I don’t necessarily find it surprising because systematic theology is, as I’ve said before, a philosophical discipline that is divorced or disconnected from the context of the Bible.  I mean, hopefully it’s not divorced entirely, but it’s got different goals.  Since today we do not have direct contact with the temple and what it means and we are now separated in time from the purposes of the physical temple, this means that our philosophy is not going to be centered on the imagery of the temple.  I mean, that just makes sense.  But I see this as a problem because the Bible is so steeped in this imagery.  Because we are disconnected from it, we now have no real understanding of what it means.  And it's simply undebatable that the theme of the temple stretches through the whole entire Bible, so missing out on this is missing out on a really big piece of the message of the Bible.
- Systematic theology becomes handicapped in a way because it now needs to describe things in terms of dry, scientific-sounding facts rather than the rich imagery that the Bible contains.  But… I admit that I am biased in that opinion.
- So systematic theology will acknowledge the meaning of the temple, but it doesn’t show in any way how prevalent this theme is throughout Scripture.  And, again I’m speaking generally here and talking mostly about the type of systematic theology we are used to seeing in a lot of American churches, it will really only acknowledge the places in Scripture that have direct connections to a theme or where it is undeniable.  So if you’re only used to seeing and reading Scripture in this way, you might get alarmed and think—wait, the cosmos and Eden can’t be temples because we know what a temple looks like and it’s not that!
- Well do we?  And is it?  Do we, just from reading the Bible, know what a temple is?  And is it anachronistic to put the idea of the temple into these early chapters of Genesis?  Well, we’ll be getting into that here shortly.
- But this is what we are able to do in biblical theology, is trace the theme throughout Scripture.  Once we have a definition and associated imagery of what something is and how it appears in the literary design of the text, this becomes quite fun to do.  The theme develops and gets added to, often in surprising ways, which is definitely the case with this theme.  I mean, going from the temple as a building where rituals are performed to the body of Christ known as the temple?  That’s a leap, it seems, right?
- Maybe less of a leap if you understand what the point of the temple was to begin with, though, and this connection between the OT and the NT will help us quite easily see the purpose of the temple.
- Now, I don’t really want to say that systematic theology tends to get the idea of the temple wrong, of course.  Grudem gives us a very brief statement on the purpose of the temple when he says:
- God’s temple is the place where God himself dwells, which Paul explains by the fact that “God’s Spirit” dwells in it, thus apparently equating God’s Spirit with God himself.

*Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 2004), 237.*
- This quote, though, is in defense of the Trinity, that is, the Spirit is God, which is fine…that’s a great use of that passage.  But no where that I recall does he expand this idea of the temple being God’s dwelling place into a wider purpose of creation or humanity, as we shall do here.
- So the temple is, briefly, where God dwells.  That’s the simplest way to put it.  In the ANE, a temple, any temple, was the place where the deity was to come down and interact with humanity or at least the priests and the probably king.  In pagan temples, the rituals were about bringing about blessings or favor or possibly thanking deities for things.  This was a place where revelation would be given at times.  You’d have ritual activities of…well, various sorts, often quite unsavory in our sensibilities.
- The temple, or first the tabernacle, of the Israelites was similar in that it was the place for God to be with his people.  And yes there were rituals and sacrifices, and these rituals were both similar to as well as different from the rituals and sacrifices of their neighbors.  But the refrain is always, God coming to dwell with his people.  Combine this with the fact of the incarnation, Christ’s physical body being referred to as the temple, and then later with the body of believers…we can’t possibly stay with the idea that the temple is solely or even primarily about ritual.  Is there something in all of those things that connects to the rituals of the OT?  Yes, there is.  But the ritual is not THE purpose, it **feeds into** the purpose of God’s dwelling with his people.  If that difference makes sense to you.  It’s like saying that the purpose of the gospel is to alleviate the sin problem.  That’s, that’s not the purpose of the gospel, that’s an extension of what happens because of the gospel, right?  So there’s ultimate purposes, and then there’s purposes that achieve that ultimate purpose, is what I’m trying to say.
- Okay, so temples were associated with mountains or high places in the ANE because these were the metaphorical dwelling places of the gods, being places that reached into the heavens.  Temples were also associated with gardens, they had a garden next to them and or were decorated in garden imagery.  This is widespread in the ancient world with temples—you can still see some examples of these in Egypt.
- So, mountains, gardens, and rituals—which of those tends to stick in your mind most when you think of a temple?  It’s probably the rituals, right?  We get so hung up on the idea that temples were for rituals that we forget that the only way they could be for rituals was if they were associated with the presence of a deity in some fashion.  The purpose of the rituals was to interact with a deity.
- All right, so I’m not actually going to get too detailed into the description of the cosmic temple simply because it’s dealt with very well in other places.  I’m trying to cover the basics here, but in particular, if this is a new concept to you, I’d point you to the short videos done by the Bible Project on the themes of the temple.  One of these videos is called Why the Temple is So Important in the Bible.  Another video is called Royal Priests of Eden.  I’d also suggest the video called How Does the Bible Describe Heaven and Earth?  I’ll link these videos in the show notes.
- If you’ve got some concerns on whether or not this is legitimate scholarship, I will also be sharing some resources that you can read up on this with.  I’m trying to think of another theme of biblical theology that seems more certain to me than this one of temple and sacred space.  We could probably make a mountain with the amount of work done in ANE and biblical studies regarding their cosmology and the reason things like mountains and gardens are so prevalent.
- But, anyway, I’ve actually been looking for criticisms of this view for awhile now because we don't want to take any topic without looking at it critically.  I did finally find something but first a description of what sacred space is and why it is important.
- The Bible doesn’t use the term “sacred space,” but it does use the term “sanctuary” in places like Ex 25:8 where it says:
- Exodus 25:8 (ESV)
8And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst.
- The word “sanctuary” comes from the verb “to be holy.”  To be holy is to be dedicated to God, distinct in a way that is…not normal, nott normal or for common use.
- The Bible also uses the word tent, which…isn’t all that descriptive.  We know that the tabernacle was a portable tent structure.
- The word “tabernacle” itself means to dwell.
- We also have the term “house of the Lord” in places like Ex. 23:19.
- So sacred space would be the sanctuary, the place that is dedicated or devoted to God for him to dwell at, in.
- What do we do with passages like Acts 7:48-50, which quotes Isaiah 66 and says:
- Acts 7:48–50 (ESV)
48Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says,
49“ ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest?
50Did not my hand make all these things?’
- Or we have Acts 17:24-25, which states:
- Acts 17:24–25 (ESV)
24The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,
25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.
- Well both of these passages here bring in creation.  Creation is already God’s dwelling, God’s temple.  And let’s think about it…does God **need** a building or a structure within which to dwell?  Clearly he does not.  Is he limited in his ability to do something because of the availability of a building?  No, he is the sovereign, supreme Creator.  So, are these passages against the idea of Israel having a temple—or are they against the idea that people can **contain** God, like what the pagans tried to do with their deities?
- When we turn to the original passage in Isaiah 66, the idea of the temple is contrasted with the person who is humble and contrite in spirit.  And what happens with the temple, with sacred space, once it gets to the NT?  The body of Christ is the temple.  Does he need us?  We like to be humble and say, oh God doesn’t need anything, he doesn’t need us, he can accomplish his goals without us—well, that’s a nice sentiment, but it’s definitively not how God works.  God is always seeking his people, seeking to dwell with them, and this is seen in various ways.  This is why if you boil it all down to one idea, without the various contrasting ways of looking at all of things, all of these layers, if you miss out on those, you’re missing out on the story, you’re missing on all these things and also, they end up looking, sometimes, like contradictions.
- I’m going to camp out here for a moment in this concept of contradictions.  What does it mean?  Does the Bible have contradictions in the way it portrays things?  I’m not going to go through some exhaustive list here.  But I’m not threatened by the fact that the Bible can have what we might call “mistakes” in it in some ways…it’s literature, it’s a text, it’s not God himself, who is the only perfect thing in existence.  But I’m not talking here about mistakes.  I’m talking about the fact that if you pull out a verse here and you pull out a verse there, you’re going to come against things that state things in exactly opposite terms, like we’ve just seen in these verses I’ve brought out.  The tabernacle was a dwelling that God told the people to make, and then these passages which state that God does not dwell in a house made by human hands.  Well, you have similar supposed contradictions about how “no one has seen the Father,” yet you have visions and events in the OT which seem to suggest otherwise.  What do we do with all of that kind of thing?
- Well, let’s think for a moment about consistency.  What does consistency mean?  First of all, situations aren’t always consistent, are they?  Why do we think it’s inconsistent for God to choose to make himself a dwelling with the people who wander in the wilderness and then turn around and say, listen, you guys have this whole idea wrong—I’m not like the other gods who are powerless without their idols and temples and rituals.  You see, that’s not inconsistent.  What’s inconsistent is the way people treated God, not the other way around.  You could see how that would create a change in the way that the temple is discussed, right?  On the one hand, the temple was something that the people were given by God.  It wasn’t something that was supposed to contain God and limit him in some way.  What God wanted was the people’s hearts, but they weren’t ready for that.
- Also, this can’t be all that much of a contradiction when we read the actual dedication of the temple in 1 Kings.
- 1 Kings 8:27–30 (ESV)
27“But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!
28Yet have regard to the prayer of your servant and to his plea, O LORD my God, listening to the cry and to the prayer that your servant prays before you this day,
29that your eyes may be open night and day toward this house, the place of which you have said, ‘My name shall be there,’ that you may listen to the prayer that your servant offers toward this place.
30And listen to the plea of your servant and of your people Israel, when they pray toward this place. And listen in heaven your dwelling place, and when you hear, forgive.
- What’s difficult is keeping all of this in our minds straight, I think.  Trying to picture it as a holistic idea….and that’s where I think we benefit from realizing that the cosmos itself is God’s temple, that it’s such a fantastic realization.  We have these ups and downs of human history that show us different aspects of what it means that God wants to be with humanity.  We had it to begin with, we lost it, and we have a long stream of narrative which shows us how dedicated God is to attain his purposes in creation, to connect with humanity in the most intimate ways where we are able to come into God’s goodness.
- Let’s go back to that goal of LDS temples…they have the same goal of connecting the human with the divine, but for what purpose?  It’s not centered on God.  It’s not for us to be with him, it’s for us to become something else ourselves, **to move beyond needing God**.  That’s not…that’s not the story of the Bible.  That isn’t the deep purpose of the temple.
- For that matter, what is the purpose of the pagan temple?  It is also centered on human need.
- Why does this matter?  I’ll get into that a bit more at the end, I hope, but this is going to connect directly to the creation mandate and this is definitely going to connect to our imaging series and seeing us as imagers of God.
- But why the cosmic temple?  Why does that matter from a practical standpoint?  Why can’t we just look at things after Genesis 1 for these themes?  Why do Genesis 1 and 2 matter, in particular?
- Well, a little teaser to what I think:  why did Christ come?  I mean, the fall happened in Genesis 3, right?  So what do Genesis 1 and 2 have to do with the Messiah?
- That’s the ticket to thinking right there, if you ask me.

## Critique of the Cosmic Temple Motif

- All right, it’s time to turn to critiquing this idea.  And…we have both the cosmos as a temple and Eden as a temple, both.  We’re going to zoom in, though, on Eden as a temple as we look at a publication by Daniel Block.  This article is published in a festshrift dedicated to the scholar GK Beale.  And what is a festshrift?  Scholars love German words.  A festshrift is a publication that is done in honor of a particular scholar.  It’s a tribute volume.  In German…fest is related to celebration.  Shrift means writing.  So a festshrift would be…writing in celebration of a scholar.
- So this is in honor of GK Beale, who has done a lot of great work with biblical theology.  His book about the temple is going to be in the show notes.  But this article I’m going to be discussing is going to push back a little on the ideas of Beale.  Now, it’s not major pushback, but it’s something interesting to consider.
- Oh, I guess I ought to give you the name of the book that this appears in.  It is in a book called *From Creation to New Creation:  Biblical Theology and Exegesis*, edited by Daniel M. Gurtner and Benjamin L Gladd.
- This article is titled *Eden:  A Temple?  A Reassessment of the Biblical Evidence*
- Now, Block isn’t arguing against this entire idea of the cosmos and/or Eden being related to the temple.  Anyone arguing *that* point would have a long road to travel, I think.
- Block acknowledges that the temple is a microcosm of a heavenly temple and that the temple and tabernacle were festooned—yes, I think that’s a good word for it—festooned with Eden imagery.  Cherubim and trees and fruit and the lampstand being a type of the tree of life, etc etc.  There is no getting around the fact that the structures’ symbols are meant to hearken back to Eden.
- The question that Block asks, though, is…did the writer of Genesis 1-3 think of the cosmos or Eden as a temple?  What he is wondering is if we are anachronistically placing the ideas back into the text?
- Let me read a couple of sentences from him here:
- “Genesis 1-3 introduces readers to a world that could be considered sacred space by virtue of its divine origin but that the narrator fails (or refuses) explicitly to place in that category, either by using special priestly vocabulary or by means of a conceptual framework.  Apparently the functioning of the cosmos was to be secured by human vassals deputized by the Creator.  If anything, this is a royal world, with the man being cast as a king, invested with the status of image of God’…”  (Block, p. 5)
- We’ll get to some specific points here about the question of whether or not the early chapters of Genesis have any vocabulary or framework for seeing temple imagery here, but I would definitely not disagree this is a royal world.  Adam is absolutely a king—as Block says, he is God’s viceroy.  So within these chapters, we have royal imagery for sure.  Is it only royal imagery, though?  Is that divorced somehow from priestly imagery?  Is it the opposite of priestly imagery?  Or does it exclude priestly imagery?
- Keep that thought for a moment.
- What kinds of priestly language do we have in Genesis 1 in particular?  There is, at minimum, the phrase, “and made it holy,” but Block argues that this is only about time, which…is kind of fair, especially when the weekly sabbath wasn’t connected to temple worship.
- So that’s Genesis 1…we’ve explored before that people like John Walton point out that the very structure of the first chapter indicates a connection to temple building and dedication in the ancient world.  Part of our discussion here needs to be, of course, on *when* Genesis was written, but if we want to suggest that the author of these chapters didn’t have temples in mind when writing, because he was too early for that, if part of that argument is that we are putting that back into the text where it doesn’t belong from the perspective of the original writers, then obviously the structure of this chapter can’t have a temple in mind—we could have it the other way around, of course, that later temple-builders have in mind this chapter of Genesis.  But we’d need, then, to include the pagan world into that assessment in that case—the reason temple dedications looked similar across cultures would be because they’re basing that on this chapter?  That…would make no sense.
- In his book *The Temple and the Church’s Mission*, Beale points out that:
- The seven lamps on the lampstand may have been associated with the seven light-sources visible to the naked eye (five planets, sun and moon). This identification is pointed to by Genesis 1 which uses the unusual word ‘lights’ (mě’ōrōt, 5 times) instead of ‘sun’ and ‘moon’, a word that is used throughout the remainder of the Pentateuch (10 times) only for the ‘lights’ on the tabernacle lampstand.

*G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 17, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL; England: InterVarsity Press; Apollos, 2004), 34.*
- Block oddly doesn’t point this vocabulary out.  To be fair, in a footnote, Beale offers that this term, lights, is not 100% confined to the temple structure throughout the OT, but it remains a strong contender for temple vocabulary here.
- In light of this, it’s a fair question to ask whether the kingly-specific vocabulary is used solely for a king.  The words “subdue” and “dominion,” definitely have the connotation of ruling, but it doesn’t have to be *royal* ruling.  It could mean protection, as well.
- Subdue is used (although admittedly in a different form) in Zech 9:15; here it is translated “tread”:
- Zechariah 9:15 (ESV)
15The LORD of hosts will protect them, and they shall devour, and **tread** down the sling stones, and they shall drink and roar as if drunk with wine, and be full like a bowl, drenched like the corners of the altar.
- The designation Lord of Hosts might indicate that God as King is in view specifically here, possibly, but it’s interesting that the altar is also mentioned in this verse.  I offer this not as some kind of proof against the kingly language of Gen 1, because I think he’s right in that the kingly imagery is exceptionally clear, but to show that even here the language can possibly be used beyond a king.
- This is important because what Block does in his article is suggest that the language that people point out as being connected to the temple is not used ***only*** and ***specifically*** for the temple.  What we need to look at is the intent of a word and does it have legitimate overlap or not?  Some of the points that Block brings up are, I think, legitimate claims that these are not priest- or temple-specific.  Others I am not remotely convinced of.
- But of course, he’d probably agree!  What he is doing is bringing forward a cumulative case to suggest that we should stop and think rather than just plow forward in assumptions.  A cumulative case is going to include both weak and strong arguments.  So the fact that we can tear down his weak arguments is not, in itself, evidence against the entire argument.  In fair critique, more time needs to be spent looking at the stronger arguments.
- All right, so in most of his points, Block demonstrates (and rightly, I think) that most of the independent connections we make with “temple imagery” aren’t only used for describing the temple sanctuary.
- And a point I’ll re-mention—what about that term?  The sanctuary—making things holy?  If Eden was a temple, wouldn’t we expect to see language of holiness?  As Block says, it’s only used of time, concerning the seventh day.  God made the seventh day holy.  It doesn’t say anything about the rest of creation.  This is, again, a fair point—but creation is called good and very good.  It’s possible that there might simply have been no need for this language…but that is, I admit, a somewhat weak argument.  The story of the tabernacle has language that says that the tabernacle and its furnishings were to be consecrated.  However, these are all things that are created by men rather than God.  Of course they would need to be consecrated.  So, I don’t know.  Just a point that seems oddly absent in the first bit of Genesis and I agree with Block that it’s that there’s nothing there.
- I’m not going to lay out all of Block’s arguments, though I’ll give a sampling of them and point out where I think some are weak and where I think he has a better case.
- The first one is in relation to the word “walking” in Genesis 3:8 where we have “the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day.”  It is suggested by the cosmic temple side that this term, walking, is used about God’s presence in the sanctuary.  Block says that this term is used much more widely than for the activity of God in the tabernacle….and I think he’s right here.  This is a pretty weak argument on the side of the temple.  However, he brings up the fact that this is used of Abraham, who was to walk the length and breadth of the land to show the area that God would give him.  So this might be connected to the idea of ownership…and though that’s not a temple-specific thing—God does not just own the area of the temple—I think it might at least be suggestive of it being a place for God to dwell rather than just for humans to reign in.
- One of the points that Block makes that I think is his weakest is the idea he suggests that the cherubim are not necessarily related to the temple but rather can be just as related to the royal court.  He uses Ezekiel 28 to suggest this as well as the fact that in the world of the time, these figures could be seen as guarding human thrones.
    - And I mean, he’s not wrong about that, and I think the connection with royalty is there.  But…come on, the explicit use of cherubim with the garden was not to guard anything of Adam’s.  If the garden is in any way, shape, or form a throne room for God, then this is a very, very strong case *for* the idea of temple sanctuary on earth.  So I think this is one of the weakest of his arguments.
- Block also talks about the supposed priestly language of the work of Adam and Eve, which is sometimes translated as “to serve and keep.”  This is used of the priests in the book of Numbers, as well.  Block suggests this is an example of things that we can move forward through time, but we shouldn’t move backwards.  He might be right, but it’s difficult to say either way.
- Another one of his points that I think is super weak is that about the garments.  It has been suggested that the use of the term garments is related to the garments that the priests wear in the temple.  Block says, hey, look, this is just a general term and anyone could wear garments, as we see elsewhere in Scripture.
    - And again, he’s not at all wrong.  But come on.  You really think that the text is just filling in some nice little detail?  No, there was a point to the inclusion of this bit.  And the only point could really be the association with garments of some sort of office at minimum.  We could argue about what that office is, but the only one associated with this word is…the priesthood.
    - In connection to this point, he brings out the suggestion that Eve could not possibly have been a priest (because remember she was also given a garment) and no where else in Scripture, is his argument, do we see women as anything approaching a priest …and I could make some points against that that I think are quite legitimate to bring up.  But I’m just going to leave it for your introspection, though.
- Other points are about how rivers, gold, stones, and gardens are not used solely for the tabernacle and temple, and again, yes, agreed, but all this imagery is starting to sound like a pretty good cumulative case to me once you build it all up.
- The mountain, he suggests, is not explicit so it’s fair to ignore it.  Again—not a wholly convincing point, but I think it’s fair to say that we really do have to think about how all of these points could possibly go the other direction.
- Block has some neat diagrams which also push back against the idea that the three-fold structure of the world at the time of the garden—with the garden inside of Eden, inside of the greater surroundings of the rest of the world—might not mean that it’s a temple, after all, because the temple is the holy of holies, the holy place, the courtyard, and also outside all of that…except that he’s broadening the definition of the temple to include the world here, so I’m not sure about that.  But I think that ignores that there is layered meaning here, since we could also say that instead of that we have the tabernacle, the Israelite camp, and the rest of the world—a three-ringed structure.  Could we fudge things to make them not look exactly like that?  Of course!  Math can always be fudged.  I think it’s too obvious, though, to have the increased centralization in Genesis.
    - Block doesn’t suggest this, but I will….could it be the case that this formation is perhaps “accidental” in Genesis?  That the author didn’t know he was putting forth this imagery?  I mean, of course it is possible.  But how likely is it, really?  I think that this structure is one of the strongest points in favor for the idea that we should see the garden in terms of a temple sanctuary and that the writer would have been thinking this and expecting his readers to get that same idea even though it’s not being explicitly stated.
    - And why wouldn’t it be explicitly stated?  That’s the big question here.  Because the temple is a later theme that, as Block rightly points out, is for the rectification of the brokenness of the world.  So in fact there seems like a greater, broader theme that the temple itself fits within—it’s just easiest to talk in terms of the temple because that’s what the Bible uses for the vast majority of its writing for this theme.  It’s not that everything is a temple—there’s a bigger idea that the temple fits within, and that Eden fits within, and that the body of Christ fits within, you see my point?  We use that temple as a main touch point for this, but the physical temple is not really the **ideal** that surrounds this idea.  It’s just the convenient concrete example.  The concrete physical example of most anything is the reflection of a wider, greater reality.
    - Block wants to see liturgy in the first chapters of Genesis; he wants to see explicit worship and things like that.  He points out that there is no “glory” language in Genesis here—we don’t have the shekinah glory filling the garden.  These are all points that might come up more in the conversations with the image of God, though, and what worship means and what worship can look like.  So we’ll leave that for later, but I’ll say right now that I think the absence of talking about these things in the way that they’re laid out in regards to the temple might only suggest that the sanctuary of Eden is not exactly the same as the temple for one simple fact…that the temple is going to have things going on that don’t yet need to go on in Eden.  So of course there are going to be differences and it needs to be described differently because of that.
- So mostly Block is talking about Eden and the garden as a temple, but you can’t ignore the idea of the cosmic temple in this discussion because if we’re right in saying that this is a sanctuary, the structure of the world indicates that the entire creation is that sanctuary—the garden of Eden is only the most central location, lining up with the holy of holies in the Israelite structure.
- For those who aren’t familiar with temple and tabernacle structure, there is division within the sanctuary where…the deeper you get, the more holy of a place you get to.  The Israelites were all able to enter into the courtyard.  Only the priests went into the holy place within that, and beyond that was the holy of holies where not even all priests could go, and even if you were the high priest, this place was reserved only for entering in on the Day of Atonement.
- So applying this to Genesis, the entire world would be the outer courtyard of the temple.  That’s still part of the sacred space.  Then you have Eden, which would function as the holy place, and the garden would be the holy of holies.
- Block pushes against this with some images of the garden, Eden, and the world being in three concentric rings, and he shows the Israelite sanctuary as having four, not three parts…these four parts are, moving from inside to outside, the holy of holies, the holy place, the courtyard, and “beyond.”  But I think this is where he makes a mistake.  That fourth section of the sanctuary, the beyond…that’s not at all part of the sanctuary structure at all.  It doesn’t make sense to put it there.  It shows that the sanctuary exists in the world, but if the sanctuary is going to equate to the structure of the cosmos in Genesis, there would be no “beyond” that that goes past the rest of the world outside of Eden.  And in the supposed four-tiered structure of the temple, that “beyond” was something different than the tabernacle or the temple, it wasn’t *part* of it.
- All right so there are a few other good points that Block does mention that we could get into in regards to how God is portrayed in the Bible as having a heavenly rather than earthly temple.  I’d like to get more into that another time because that plays nicely into the mirroring idea of the cosmos with the heavens.  But if you divorce this idea of the world being a mirror for that greater, heavenly reality, then you are taking away the idea that God has no need or desire to come to humanity, which is obviously not what we are seeing here.  The presence of God with humanity has always been the aspect and the real touchpoint of what we are talking about.
- At one point, Block says that the temple was the “source for re-creation for the whole world,” and gosh I totally agree with that….Eden was the source of initial creation for the whole world!
- There are other problems with not seeing Genesis 1 as a temple-building text of sorts.  If it’s not, then I think it becomes quite difficult to explain why the chapter looks like it does.  And yes I hear you, maybe it looks like that because that’s exactly how it happened!  Well, maybe it did happen like that, but that doesn’t necessitate the structure of the writing.  The refrain of God speaking, the organization of matter, the repeated elements of seven, the creation of the image of God….in short, yes all of these things could be coincidence or explained away in other words but the cumulative case is fairly exhausting.
- I actually think that he kind of shoots himself in the foot in his conclusion in a way.  He's adamant that God in fact dwells in heaven rather than on earth. Then he admits in his conclusion that quote, “The incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ rendered superfluous the temple's role as the link between a fallen world and a heavenly court reaching out to that world.”
- So, if the temple is bridging this world in God's true heavenly court, then well, isn't that what we see in Genesis 1-3?  Block seems to want to say that if God created the cosmos as a temple, then this would leave his heavenly temple empty, that God would abandon his heavenly dwelling in favor of only living in his new digs on earth.  But why would we assume that? Why would the earth replace heaven even in revelation? We don't see this in Revelation, we see in new heavens and a new earth. As I've talked about the idea of a divine council and how the earth and heaven are meant to mirror one another, I would not expect that God creating an earthly dwelling would destroy or make obsolete his heavenly dwelling.  And if God's purposes are and were always to be, to bring the earthly and heavenly together, which we could otherwise describe as God's incarnation and indwelling of creation, then there never would've been a plan to eradicate or abandon a heavenly place. That would always be the true reality, because God is spirit and God is perfect, so his original dwelling place would reflect that. What he wants is to bring that perfection into the material creation, and this was always to have been done with and to by his imagers, Christ being the ultimate one. Of course, that's some of what we've been talking about in the image series and what we will be fleshing out here soon, some more.
- I listened to an interview that Beale did a couple of years ago, and one of the questions was, well, why does this matter? Why is it practical? And he answered, because we are God's imagers and this and this fact, including having the Spirit of Christ helps us live on earth in that light. No matter what we are doing, we reflect and image God and he's right.
- But I still ask why does it matter that we see the temple in particular in Genesis 1-3? And I think because of the work of Christ, if Christ came only to fix our big debacle in Genesis 3, then this disconnects the Messiah's work from the original purposes of creation.
- Now you might say, no it doesn't, because of course what he is doing is bringing us back to original creation.
- Well, exactly! How?  By the means of this temple that pervades creation from the start. But also if Jesus came only in response to Genesis 3, if he wouldn't have come otherwise, well that makes the incarnation plan B. I will maintain, and I hope some of what we talk about soon will help flesh this out, that we were always meant to be joined with the divine, that God was always meant to be enthroned as king here on earth, just as he is already in his heavenly court. So yes, the royal imagery throughout creation, I don't think there is a mistake in that… it's necessarily interrelated. Further, we have figures like Melchizedek.  Melchizedek, who is the first specifically mentioned a priest in the Bible.  He was a king and a priest. So this shows that the king and priest were to function together. It's just our silly human stubbornness caused these things to be separated because we're slow learners, I guess, or something.
- Now I respect Daniel Block a great deal. So my discussion here shouldn't be seen in any negative light.  I'm really appreciative of his willingness to put these ideas out to further the conversation because as I've said, we need to critique ideas and we have to do this together. We have to, if we don't, we'll never know how strong our ideas are or where our weak points are that we could tweak to improve the whole structure.  So I greatly appreciate his article and ideas and I do think he's succeeded to find some weak points and that's fantastic. I actually think his conclusion brings out these points delightfully. He is just overall too focused on the idea of the physical temple, where in reality, all of these reflect something broader than any individual expression of, of this theme, at least until we get to the end of creation.
- In his conclusion block says that the temple was, that it functioned as in *axis mundi*. And what is that?  In astronomy, the *axis mundi* is the celestial pole, right? It's the axis of rotation, but it, it also functions in mythology as a cosmic axis or, or kind of the center of the world. Often this is seen as a cosmic world tree where heaven and earth meet and Block says that the temple was, “a divinely revealed and authorized means whereby God in heaven could continue to communicate with the inhabitants of the earth even after the relationship had been ruptured through human rebellion.”
- I don't disagree with this, but is it only communication that matters? Or is it relationship? Is it presence? Is it God's actual coming down into earth? To create something that is both other than himself, as well as an extension of himself. I'm going to give another quote here from his conclusion.
- “While Paul's identification of Christian believers as the temple of God, alt by the Holy Spirit reinforces the irrelevance of the temple as the primary symbol of Yahweh's desire to relate to his world. The epistle to the Hebrews provides the fullest essay on the relationship between the temple and the incarnation in light of the appearance of the son of God through whom the world was created, who embodies the radiant glory of God and the exact imprint of his being who sustains all of the creation by his strong word, who has solved the problem of human sin and who is seated at the right hand of the majesty on high. Shadow institutions like temple and sacrifices, an ironic priesthood have been superseded by the reality through Jesus Christ. Saving work the people of God participate in God's Edenic res.  The movement away from the temple as the locus of divine presence to Jesus Christ climaxes in the vision of a restored cosmos in the Book of Revelation a little bit later, this is not a return to the original Eden, but signals a glorious transformation of the original home of humanity. The divine visits will not be limited to appearances in the cool of the day, the very presence of the throne of God and the lamb will guarantee access to the tree of life, the wellbeing of the city, and the permanent removal of the curse and its effects.  Furthermore, it will ensure that his delegated agents will serve and keep the earth according to the original divine mandate.”
- So if we want to say that the temple is an imperfect image of what this bigger reality is, then absolutely. I would agree with that. Absolutely. I would say that the temple is only a shadow of these things.  It is not the thing itself, but if we ignore these connections, I think we're missing out on this major, major, major thread that goes throughout the entire length of scripture. All right. So I, I think you'll see that this will connect very seamlessly into our image series and, and probably you were already seeing how that actually works.
- I think that any time that we try and zoom in and compartmentalize and try to simplify the story of scripture, we're just gonna be missing out on things. We need to allow all of these things to dwell in our minds, in our hearts as we're reading scripture and realize just how interconnected these ideas are with one another.  And partially it's about forming a biblical imagination and trying to get our heads into this text in a very real way. So I hope that this episode has been helpful. I hope it's been insightful to you. For those of you who have never heard of these ideas, maybe you've gotten some ideas here. For those of you who have heard about these ideas, maybe this has helped you think about it in a slightly different angle or framework or something along those lines.  That is always my goal to help you guys think and just to engage thinking myself.

## Outro

- So I appreciate everyone listening, and as always, I would love to hear any feedback. You can find me on Facebook. You can find me through email at genesismarksthespot@gmail.com.  I appreciate so many of you who are sharing these episodes, who have rated my podcast on the places that you have listened at.  I appreciate all of you who are engaging with me on social media.
- A quick reminder that I do want to do a Q&A concerning the image of God and and questions involving the cosmic temple and the themes of this episode would fit really well into that. So if you do have any questions, feel free to share them with me cuz I'd like to engage with those on air.  So thanks again to everyone and I also want to thank Wintergatan for the use of the music. I hope everyone has a great weekend. We'll see you later!